Candidates Respond To Bhutto's Death

Assassination In Pakistan Pushed To The Forefront Of The Campaign

(CBS/AP)  One week before the Iowa caucuses, the assassination of former Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto pushed terrorism to the forefront in voters' minds and highlighted the candidacies of presidential hopefuls with long records on national security.

Bhutto's assassination on Thursday rippled through the presidential race as candidates scrambled to respond and adjusted campaign plans on a day overshadowed by the terrorist attack in Rawalpindi.

The deadly incident at an election rally in Pakistan could help presidential candidates such as Republican Rudy Giuliani, who was in charge of New York City when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001, and Vietnam War veteran John McCain, a longtime member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Rodham Clinton has argued that her experience makes her prepared to lead the nation in troubled times. Rival Barack Obama has pushed a hard line in dealing with Pakistan and the search for Osama bin Laden.

Democratic candidate Sen. John Edwards said at a campaign event at Luther College that he spoke with President Musharraf on the phone, reports CBS News' Aaron Lewis.

Edwards said he "urged him to continue the democratization" process in Pakistan and also urged him to allow international investigators inside Pakistan to investigate the cause. (Read more about the call)

Earlier, in a statement, Edwards called Bhutto a "brave and historic leader" and focused on not delaying progress in Pakistan.

"At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle. We should do everything in our power to help bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice and to ensure that Bhutto's movement toward democracy continues," he said.

At a high school in Lawton, Iowa, on Thursday, Clinton said she had come to know Bhutto during the former prime minister's years in office and her time in exile and was "profoundly saddened and outraged" by the assassination.

In a world of such violence and threats, Clinton said, "it certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president. I know from a lifetime of working to make change."

"Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence," Clinton added in a statement.

Obama said he was shocked and saddened by Bhutto's death.

"She was a respected and resilient advocate of democracy for the people of Pakistan," he said. "We have to make sure that we are clear as Americans that we stand for democracy and that we will be steadfast in our desire to end the types of terrorist attacks that have blighted not just Pakistan but the rest of the of the world."

Giuliani said Thursday the assassination of Bhutto underscored a need for the U.S. to increase its efforts to combat terrorism.

"Her murderers must be brought to justice, and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law," Giuliani said in a statement. "Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere - whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi - is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."

McCain, in a statement, said the death of Bhutto "underscores yet again the grave dangers we face in the world today and particularly in countries like Pakistan, where the forces of moderation are arrayed in a fierce battle against those who embrace violent Islamic extremism.

"Given Pakistan's strategic location, the international terrorist groups that operate from its soil, and its nuclear arsenal, the future of that country has deep implications for the security of the United States and its allies. America must stand on the right side of this ongoing struggle," he said, noting that he has made numerous visits to Pakistan.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was asked about Bhutto after his first campaign event at Norton's Classic Cafe, in Nashua, N.H., reports CBS News' Scott Conroy. He called for the U.S. and other countries in the West and the Muslim world to "come together to support moderate Islamic leaders, moderate Islamic people."

"This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism," Romney said. "The world is very much at risk by virtue of these radical violent extremists and we must come together in an effort in great haste and with great earnestness to help overcome the threat of the spread of radical, violent Jihad."

On Wednesday night, Romney had criticized Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for imposing martial law. Romney was asked if he had more sympathy for such action given the attack on Bhutto.

"I believe it was a mistake. I believe as well that martial law was principally imposed by him to protect himself from political challenge, a challenge from the Supreme Court and others, and believe that it was not a productive course for his nation," Romney said.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee said the assassination was "devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them."

"The terrible violence surrounding Pakistan's upcoming election stands in stark contrast to the peaceful transition of power that we embrace in our country through our Constitution," Huckabee said in a statement. (Read more on Huckabee's reponse)

Another Republican candidate, Fred Thompson, an actor and former senator, said the assassination shows that the United States could be just "one terrorist plot away from having disaster visit us."

"It's indicative of the kind of world that we live in today. It is a dangerous world. It is a complicated world," he said. "We need to understand that it could be a lot closer than Pakistan for us if we don't do what is right."

Democratic presidential candidate New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called on President Bush to force Musharraf to step down. Until then, Richardson said the U.S. must suspend military aid to the Pakistani government.

"A leader has died, but democracy must live. The United States government cannot stand by and allow Pakistan's return to democracy to be derailed or delayed by violence," Richardson said.

Democratic candidate Sen. Joe Biden said this was a "terrible day" and in a statement urged Bhutto's followers to remain calm.

“I am convinced Ms. Bhutto would have won free and fair elections next week," Biden said. "The fact that she was by far Pakistan’s most popular leader underscores the fact that there is a vast, moderate majority in Pakistan that must have a clear voice in the system. Her assassination makes it all the more urgent that Pakistan return to a democratic path."

"I urge Pakistan’s leaders to open a fully accountable and transparent investigation," he added.

The fallout from Bhutto's assassination could benefit some candidates, but CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield said any impact is likely to be small.

"Remember, since this wasn't a direct attack on Americans, the impact we're talking about is likely marginal and probably would help those with national security profiles like Sen. McCain, perhaps Rudy Giuliani, as opposed to say a Mike Huckabee," Greenfield said. "Among Democrats, Joe Biden's talked a lot about the dangers in Pakistan, Hillary Clinton's been talking about who you want in the Oval Office if something unpredictable's happened. And for its part, the Obama campaign said today that she voted for the war in Iraq which took our eye off the ball in that region when the Taliban and al Qaeda have gained strength."

The Bush administration has pushed hard for peaceful elections in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation led by Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the anti-terror war.

Bhutto was killed in an attack on an election rally in Rawalpindi. Many others were killed in a blast that took place as Bhutto left the rally where she had addressed thousands of supporters in her campaign for Jan. 8 parliamentary elections.

Bhutto served twice as Pakistan's prime minister between 1988 and 1996. She had returned to Pakistan from an eight-year exile Oct. 18. Her homecoming parade in Karachi was also targeted by a suicide attacker, and more than 140 people were killed. On that occasion she narrowly escaped injury.

[rwassel]

SBB2211 and Demwatcher -

Judging from your silence, I see you have realized your ignorance. Come back after you''ve done your research, kiddies. Now go watch your Fox News and keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

[samthetvcat]

Hillary waited over 24 hours to speak out with an action plan, and it was to urge Musharraf to let independent investigators look into the assassination because he had lost all credibility. She claims the investigation is the key to establishing democracy in Pakistan, so that that is what needs to be done.

I take back what I said earlier about all the candidates having good advisors with sound judgments because Pakistan doesn''t seem to have the established justice system and free press for truth to emerge so this idea is a total waste of time. What''s more, one only has to look at the video to know Bhutto didn''t have much security, so even if Shrub is able to strongarm his little patsy Musharraf into going along with the process Bhutto''s supporters are never going to believe the results.

Hillary''s larger plan for establishing democracy in Pakistan is to - get this - NATION-BUILD! Just like she advocated for Iraq. This for me is why ''experience'' doesn''t necessarily lead to success - if people aren''t willing to admit they''re mistakes, they''re not going to learn from them and will tend to repeat them.

Ideally it''d be wonderful if everybody could live like we do, but Democracy isn''t an easy concept to implement. Wouldn''t the more realistic route be to look at who''s next up in the pipeline as likely to rise to power, figure out how to ensure that they''re not going to use nukes and then once that reassurance is secured go from there?

[ramos937]

My comments here are limitted to the Democratic candidates. The big "winner" is Clinton though it was unintentional. Obama''s camp, by asserting that Clinton somehow had a role in the assination, clearly demonstrated Obama''s lack of experience and common sense. Since they made this assertion, they have had to defend it in different forums. This was not their intent but it back fired on them big time. Now, they have given Clinton a huge weapons which she will use.

[taotxzen]

Sorry Charlie

So, when the Bush administration supported former Prime Minister Bhutto%u2019s return to Pakistan in October 2007, the wishful thinking was that she could somehow energize the more moderate elements of Pakistani politics and marginalize the Islamic extremists.

But the overstretched U.S. military and intelligence services could do little in helping to protect Bhutto beyond hectoring Pakistan%u2019s President Pervez Musharraf to give his political rival more security. Musharraf, who himself has dodged multiple assassination attempts, either couldn%u2019t or wouldn%u2019t ensure Bhutto%u2019s safety.

Now, with Bhutto%u2019s death and with unrest sweeping Pakistan, Bush%u2019s Iraq War backers are sure to argue that these developments again prove the president right, that an even firmer hand is needed to combat terrorism and that the next president must be someone ready to press ahead with Bush%u2019s concept of a %u201Clong war%u201D against Islamic extremism.

(CONT)

[taotxzen]

(CONT)

But the reality again appears different. Though rarely mentioned in the American press, the evidence is that bin Laden and other extremists have cleverly played off Bush%u2019s arrogance and belligerence to strengthen their strategic hand within the Muslim world.

By keeping Bush focused on Iraq, al-Qaeda and its allies also bought time to transform themselves into a more lethal threat in Pakistan, with the danger that the new turmoil could win al-Qaeda its ultimate prize, control of a nuclear bomb.

[taotxzen]

Charlie Wilson%u2019s War (CONT)

This shadow struggle at the end of the Cold War was the backdrop for the 9/11 attacks, which in turn led to Bush%u2019s invasion of Afghanistan, ousting bin Laden and his fundamentalist Taliban allies, but failing to catch bin Laden, Zawahiri and other key leaders.

Then, rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush made an abrupt detour into Iraq, a decision rife with settling old scores and other unspoken justifications, but which Bush sold to the American public as necessary because Iraq%u2019s secular dictator Saddam Hussein was in league with the fundamentalist bin Laden and might give him WMDs.

When that justification proved false and a stubborn Iraqi insurgency emerged to challenge the U.S. occupation, Bush initially presented the resistance as an al-Qaeda offshoot operating under bin Laden%u2019s control.

(CONT)

[taotxzen]

(CONT)

Again, U.S. intelligence saw a different problem: Sunni and Shiite Iraqis contesting the American presence and competing for dominance with each other, while a violent smattering of foreign jihadists like Zarqawi tried to insinuate themselves into the Sunni faction and spread havoc.

Though Bush eventually acknowledged that most of Iraqi resistance was homegrown, he still asserted that al-Qaeda planned to use Iraq as the launching pad for a global %u201Ccaliphate%u201D from Spain to Indonesia, another alarmist claim that scared some Americans into backing Bush%u2019s war policies.

%u201CThis caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia,%u201D Bush said in a typical reference to this claim in a Sept. 5, 2006, speech. %u201CWe know this because al-Qaeda has told us.%u201D

(CONT)

[taotxzen]

(CONT)

But many analysts saw Bush%u2019s nightmarish scenario as preposterous, given the deep divisions within the Islamic world and the hostility that many Muslims feel toward al-Qaeda, including its recent much-heralded rejection by more moderate Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province.

Also, according to a National Intelligence Estimate representing the consensus view of the U.S. intelligence community in April 2006, %u201Cthe global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.%u201D [Emphasis added.]

The NIE also concluded that the Iraq War %u2013 rather than weakening the cause of Islamic terrorism %u2013 had become a %u201Ccause celebre%u201D that was %u201Ccultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.%u201D
The grinding Iraq War %u2013 now nearing its fifth year %u2013 also prevented the United States from arraying sufficient military and intelligence resources against the reorganized al-Qaeda infrastructure in Pakistan and the rebuilt Taliban army reasserting itself in Afghanistan.

[taotxzen]

Charlie Wilson%u2019s War

That CIA war, lionized in the new movie %u201CCharlie Wilson%u2019s War,%u201D funneled billions of dollars in U.S. covert money and weapons through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan warlords and to Arab jihadists who had flocked to Afghanistan to drive out the Russian infidels. One of those young jihadists was a wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

While relying on Pakistani intelligence to assist the Afghan rebels, the Reagan administration also averted its eyes from Pakistan%u2019s clandestine development of nuclear weapons, an apparent trade-off for Pakistan%u2019s help in giving the Soviet bear a bloody nose in Afghanistan. [For details, see Robert Parry%u2019s Secrecy & Privilege.]

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the war dragged on, with a triumphant United States unwilling to broker a deal with the secular Afghan government that the Soviets left behind. George H.W. Bush%u2019s administration wanted these %u201CSoviet puppets%u201D dragged from their offices and killed (as some eventually were), replaced by the CIA-backed Islamic fundamentalists.

(CONT)

[taotxzen]

(CONT)

Then, in 1990, the alliances began to shift. U.S. military bases inside Saudi Arabia, which were established for driving Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, offended bin Laden and alienated him from his patrons in the Saudi royal family.

When the U.S. bases remained after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, bin Laden began to view his old American allies as another band of infidels encroaching on Muslim lands. So, bin Laden%u2019s fellow jihadists in Afghanistan shifted their sights onto a new enemy and developed a new organization known as %u201Cthe base,%u201D or al-Qaeda.

For obvious reasons, the Bush administration has sought to blur this complicated history for the American people. It takes some of the shine off the glorious Cold War victories of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

[rwassel]

You Bush lovers are pathetic! No matter how you look at it, or how you spin the numbers, you will never be able to face up to the fact that Clinton was 10 times the president Bush is. And just to make that clear...chew on this:

When Bill Clinton left office, he had an approval rating of 65% (and that was even after Monica-gate), the highest among any US president since WW2. What odds do you geniuses give George "24%" Bush of beating that mark? I''ll give you 100:1 that he doesn''t.

[rwassel]

SBB2211 -

Uhhh...nice comeback. Any feelings about Hillary doubling Bush? And gee, you would think holding what used to be the most respected position in the country would net you a little more than 10%, but apparently not. I''d say 8 years after leaving the public eye, for Bill to get 8% (that''s within the sampling the error anyways, but I won''t take the time to explain that to you), and your boy the president getting 10%, not too shabby.

Nice try, chief.

[samthetvcat]

PS Also, knowing what to do and actually deciding to do it are two different things - like Giuliani probably knew marriage was ''til death do us part, but well . . . I guess that''s where character comes into the mix (?)

[samthetvcat]

pt 3

That being said, are there equivalent guarantors of reliability other than experience which would tend to show that person if given a new responsibility will likely do well? Although the rest of the candidates weren''t as confident as Giuliani, I thought they all did fine. Which means that they must all have experienced policy advisors with sound judgment. Because not everybody has experience in every area or even strengths in every area. Obama might not be as much of a scrapper as Hillary, but Hillary''s terrible at diplomacy.

Thus, even if the candidates have weaknesses in some areas they seem to all have the smarts to know who to hire to compensate for their deficiencies - whoever we end up with ought to be an improvement from the boob we have now!

[samthetvcat]

pt 2

So my personal thoughts on the concept of ''experience'' is that many people are using the candidates'' past to try and predict how the candidates are going to act in the future. And past behavior is probably the best predictor of future behavior that we have - only I don''t think it''s the ONLY gauge. Moreover, people aren''t always accurate judges of how well past experience is relevant to future tasks.

For example, McCain''s answer today was terrible. Yet because he''s endured violence personally and advocated military action, people somehow see ''tough'' and ''strong'' and translate this to him having the experience to lead in a crisis (which only Giuliani has), the knowledge of the inner dynamics of the Pakistani people (none of us have), the ability target and connect with the power players in Pakistan (McCain''s served on armed services committees, but has he actually had to broker agreements with hostile factions?), etc...I mean there''s seems to be like some serious attribution errors going on with people''s use of ''experience'' as a predictor of future success.

[samthetvcat]

"Not real smart to play around with the mob...their loyalty isn''''t the best...and their bookkeeping is the worst."
Posted by RowdyTexan2

lol :D

I''ve caught what some of the candidates have said about the power vacuum in Pakistan and where we go from here and quite frankly the only one who looked at ease was Giuliani. I guess when you think about it, the only one who has actually been in that kind of situation is Giuliani, so that stands to reason.

Which makes me ponder this about experience - despite the fact that Giuliani clearly demonstrated the best response to today because of his experience why does that not sway me (or most people) to vote for him?

Is it because terrorism isn''t everything (and therefore experience handling crises doesn''t translate to great handling of humanitarian issues like the ongoing Katrina aftermath)?

Is it because prior to 9/11 Giuliani didn''t have crisis experience but still handled it well (and therefore there are other predictors of likelihood of success)?

Is it because experience isn''t everything (and therefore other factors matter more or matter enough that they need to coexist)?

And what is ''experience'' anyway? When people speak of ''experience'' are they referring to past behavior that led to results clearly attributable to that behavior or is that just a euphemism for ''older'' (and therefore assumptively ''wiser'')?

[sbb2211]

All of this, not to mention he just tallied an approval rating to match the lowest of his career.

Response, Professor?

Posted by rwassel at 08:01 PM : Dec 27, 2007

I see that DemWatcher beat me to it, but that is correct. After Bill left the White House, his popularity PLUMMETED! Your boy cannot even muster enough charisma to beat Bush now.

That is the ULTIMATE sad commentary on your ''hero''.

[demwatcher]

"Response, Professor?

Posted by rwassel at 08:01 PM : Dec 27, 2007"

If the NUMBERS matter to you, than Bush still BEATS Clinton. AND Clinton''s numbers ARE LOWER THAN BUSH''S NOW!

Responded.

[rwassel]

"Response?"

Posted by SBB2211 at 07:47 PM : Dec 27, 2007

Sure, I think I have a couple.

1.) In this same poll, Bill Clinton scored at 67.79% conistently every year of his presidency. What did Bush manage this year? Oh yes - a whopping 10%!

2.) Hillary Clinton (not even president) scored 18%, again, almost doubling Bush''s enormous 10%!

All of this, not to mention he just tallied an approval rating to match the lowest of his career.

Response, Professor?

[sbb2211]

"I don''''t get you Fascist! You seem to think, for what reason is beyond me, that America HATES the Clinton''''s. This in the face of the reality of Poll after Poll. If you can''''t come up with some reason, any reason, why we should continue to support people who are so OBVIOUSLY getting the butt whoopin of our history, why bother with your hate target. Maybe in your small mind you thing it helps your cause to remind people when they actually HAD a President, let alone one that actually DID what they wanted. If so you should change the foil on your head... Sieg Heil Bush!!

Posted by MCVet at 03:45 PM : Dec 27, 2007"

Here''s your poll:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-27-most-admired-poll_N.htm

President Bush BEATS Bill Clinton as the most admired man, again.

Response?